UIC Law Open Access Repository
Not a member yet
4764 research outputs found
Sort by
Are Current Regulations Toward Monopolization Effective in Preventing Anticompetitive Practices Towards Startups, 53 UIC J. Marshall L. Rev. 673 (2021)
Get PDFThe Right to Access the Sea and Why India Should Pioneer It, 53 UIC J. Marshall L. Rev. 947 (2021)
Get PDF
Off-Label Use in the Twenty-First Century: Most Myths and Misconceptions Mitigated, 54 UIC J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (2021)
Get PDFThe Law School Curriculum and the Movement for Black Lives, 31 U. Fla. JL & Pub. Pol\u27y 27 (2021)
No full textFlipping the DMCA and its Progeny on Their Heads: Content Creators Reclaiming Revenue From Improper Copyright Claims, 54 UIC L. Rev. 757 (2021)
Get PDF
Does the First Amendment Bar Congress from Restricting Federal Funds to Fight HIV and AIDS Abroad to Foreign Affiliates of U.S. Nongovernmental Organizations That Have a Policy Explicitly Opposing Prostitution and Sex Trafficking?
No full textPatent Owners Face Unknown Arguments as to Whether IPR Estoppel Attaches to Physical Products, 19 UIC REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 328 (2020)
Get PDFWhen challenging a patent in an inter partes review (“IPR”), petitioners are limited to arguing that the patent is anticipated or obvious based on existing patents and printed publications. According to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) and (2), a petitioner in an IPR that results in a final written decision (FWD) may not raise in the USPTO or a civil action or an ITC proceeding “any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.” But, what if a prior art physical product is cumulative of a printed publication raised in an IPR? Courts have been asked to consider whether estoppel attaches to physical products that are described in patents or printed publications. Petitioners need to be aware of this potential situation where prior art materials may not qualify as printed publications for purposes of an IPR proceeding but will be found sufficiently similar to printed publication materials for estoppel to apply in litigation
So Are Games Coffee Mugs or What? Games and the Right of Publicity Revisited, 19 UIC Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 178 (2020)
Get PDFIn Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. 786 (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court held that video games are equivalent to other forms of media for First Amendment purposes. This decision should have put video games in the same category as other forms of non-commercial, expressive speech for purposes of the right of publicity. This article reviews the post-Brown decisions to determine the current place of video games within the caselaw. The result of that review is that games are still in a transitional stage, no longer merchandise as a matter of doctrine, but not yet receiving the same treatment as books, films, and other forms of traditional media. The tension between doctrine and case outcomes cannot last, but the right cases have not yet come along to force courts to confront the discrepancy